Re: [gnso-rn-wg] Controversial Names Subgroup report

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I am going out for several hours now, but can look at it when i get  
back.  I take you have decided that it is better to weave those  
recommendations back in as opposed to just leaving them in.
As for the 2nd and 3rd level that was decided the last time, and as  
far as i know not even in the SOW for this time. As I remember there  
was a recommendation then that there were no CN considerations being  
recommend for 2nd level and beyond.
a.



On 9 maj 2007, at 10.39, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Avri,
>
> Would you suggest a way of presenting the recommendations to deal with
> this ASAP and then I will do a full review of the report.  It is also
> important to add in the other recommendations for 2nd and 3rd level  
> from
> the original report.  Because you do not use Word, if it is easier  
> I can
> do that.
>
> Chuck Gomes
>
> "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
> which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
> confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
> unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly  
> prohibited. If
> you have received this message in error, please notify sender
> immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 10:33 AM
> > To: Gomes, Chuck
> > Cc: GNSO RN WG; Controversial TLDs
> > Subject: Re: [gnso-rn-wg] Controversial Names Subgroup report
> > Importance: High
> >
> > hi,
> >
> > Thank you for normalizing the look and feel of the report.
> >
> > Re the issue of removing the old recommendations.
> >
> > For the most part, the content is included in the new
> > recommendations.  I am not sure, however, that _all_ of the
> > aspects are covered, and thus we may need to retain the
> > original proposals or we may need to add the content into the
> > current recommendation set.
> >
> > The subgroup did, however, pretty much use those
> > recommendations, having been supported originally but
> > requiring more work, as the agreed upon base for the new
> > recommendations.  Where we did make changes, e.g. the move
> > away from requiring full consensus decisions from the ACs,
> > those were explicit decisions and were discussed in the
> > background section of the document
> >
> > a.
> >
> > On 9 maj 2007, at 08.57, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> >
> > > <Subgroup Report for Controversial Names with Gomes edits 8 May.doc>